[dcc2] NAT traversal for direct connections

[peter green]

sure  but i don't think we need that part of STUN as we already have irc to
communicatate

the only parts of stun we need are to work out an externel udp ip and port
and (possiblly) to probe the type of nat we are working with

-----Original Message-----
From: dcc2-bounces at dcc2.org [mailto:dcc2-bounces at dcc2.org]On Behalf Of
Dave Johnson
Sent: 25 May 2004 19:10
To: DCC2 Working Group List
Subject: RE: [dcc2] NAT traversal for direct connections



Whoops, I meant TLS (under 8.2 Shared Secret Requests)

--
Dave

peter green writes:
> STUN does not require ssl
> read the rfc
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3489.html
> there is absoloutely no mention of ssl
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dcc2-bounces at dcc2.org [mailto:dcc2-bounces at dcc2.org]On Behalf Of
> Dave Johnson
> Sent: 25 May 2004 16:30
> To: DCC2 Working Group List
> Subject: RE: [dcc2] NAT traversal for direct connections
>
>
>
> STUN certanly looks interesting, but to me it seems overly
> complicated.  If I read it correctly it requires an external server to
> setup the connection.  Where is this?  Are we going to suggest the IRC
> server do this or even integrate something into ircd?  Why in the
> world would STUN require SSL just to let you send it a udp packet.
>
> I started putting together a proposal for automatic NAT/firewall
> traversal, I'll see if I can finish that up in the next few days and
> send it out.
>
> --
> Dave
>


_______________________________________________
dcc2 mailing list
dcc2 at dcc2.org
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/dcc2
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 22/05/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 22/05/2004